Agenda for growth - section 5.4 "external mediation"

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 06 Oct 2017, 19:36

As far as I'm aware it is the union's contention that Royal Mail have refused the help of an external mediator so the argument would be that the clause is null and void. If one party will not abide by a clause then you can't expect the other to.

Is there a smoking gun, does the union have that refusal in writing, is it an explicit refusal or just an implied position, is there an ACAS "letter"? All may be revealed...or not.

Glenno · Post by **Glenno** » 06 Oct 2017, 19:50

LaggyBand wrote:
stephen500 wrote:
BeamishStout wrote:I cannot see how an external mediator will be able to come to any sort of realistic conclusion in a couple of weeks if they have no idea how the business works. More like a couple of months at best if this is what has to happen. But if it does take an extended time frame then the CWU needs must have all its ducks lined up in a row.
There are strict time frames. Which can be extended if all parties agree.
CWU say they have had external mediators (See Terry Pulligner's latest CWU video (cwu facebook page).
But was this the same as having parties agreed by ACAS?
If the CWU has followed procedure, it will be fine, if NOT the High court will rule against it.
I cannot realistically believe the Union's lawyers would have missed this clause. No way. They would have followed it. It surely has to be fine. Maybe this is just about buying time.

O k folks, I think we all need to calm down a tad, Firstly there was always gonna be a challenge from RM, we are now under a different set of rules with the Anti -trade Union Bill that went thru last year, Dingo alluded to this earlier in the month, this is only the 2nd Dispute under these new rules and the RMT were not challenged, so here we are the first to be challenged, hold tight, stick together, solidarity is key and let the Legal Beagles scrap it out

datasaint · Post by **datasaint** » 06 Oct 2017, 20:03

The courts aren't there to order Royal Mail how to run their business. They just interpret the contract and say who they think is correct. Doesn't mean RM have to act on it. Same way it was in the David Mitchell case, employment tribunal said give him his job back, didn't happen.

mr hil. · Post by **mr hil.** » 06 Oct 2017, 20:08

P739 · Post by **P739** » 06 Oct 2017, 20:21

Thanks

Post by **stephen500** » 06 Oct 2017, 21:47

mr hil. wrote:If you read the whole agenda for growth, the section that they are referring to is specifically aimed at resolving LOCAL disputes quickly. The reference to use external mediation is to be used if a local dispute has not been resolved by the national union guys and royal mail. I beleive that it has no relevance to this national dispute whatsoever.

" [national]disagreement relating to a matter that is not covered by existing collective agreements, it will be similarly referred if an agreed way forward is not found within one month."

Post by **aiden01** » 06 Oct 2017, 21:57

stephen500 wrote:
mr hil. wrote:If you read the whole agenda for growth, the section that they are referring to is specifically aimed at resolving LOCAL disputes quickly. The reference to use external mediation is to be used if a local dispute has not been resolved by the national union guys and royal mail. I beleive that it has no relevance to this national dispute whatsoever.
" [national]disagreement relating to a matter that is not covered by existing collective agreements, it will be similarly referred if an agreed way forward is not found within one month."

Minefield comes to mind and who wins lawyers only..

mr hil. · Post by **mr hil.** » 06 Oct 2017, 22:55

Post by **stephen500** » 07 Oct 2017, 06:39

mr hil. wrote:I stand corrected, if that is the case then the earliest date for a new strike could be the 1st December!!! (that is if the mediator is appointed and receives the necessary documents etc. within a week from now.) Any delay would push any possible future strike further into December. The 1 month clause surely does not apply due to the 18 months of negotiations and the time scale the union have used since informing RM of the intention to ballot. That should be the date that decides when things officially broke down.

I would think that after an injunction was lifted, that 14 days notice would have to be given again.

LaggyBand · Post by **LaggyBand** » 07 Oct 2017, 06:46

stephen500 wrote:
mr hil. wrote:I stand corrected, if that is the case then the earliest date for a new strike could be the 1st December!!! (that is if the mediator is appointed and receives the necessary documents etc. within a week from now.) Any delay would push any possible future strike further into December. The 1 month clause surely does not apply due to the 18 months of negotiations and the time scale the union have used since informing RM of the intention to ballot. That should be the date that decides when things officially broke down.
I would think that after an injunction was lifted, that 14 days notice would have to be given again.

Starting to think these dates have long been on a calender pinned up at RM HQ.

Danelectro · Post by **Danelectro** » 07 Oct 2017, 07:22

LaggyBand wrote:
stephen500 wrote:
mr hil. wrote:I stand corrected, if that is the case then the earliest date for a new strike could be the 1st December!!! (that is if the mediator is appointed and receives the necessary documents etc. within a week from now.) Any delay would push any possible future strike further into December. The 1 month clause surely does not apply due to the 18 months of negotiations and the time scale the union have used since informing RM of the intention to ballot. That should be the date that decides when things officially broke down.
I would think that after an injunction was lifted, that 14 days notice would have to be given again.
Starting to think these dates have long been on a calender pinned up at RM HQ.

Pullinger was asked on the Reps tour if the CWU are prepared to endorse strike action in the run up of to Christmas including up the 24th.

He replied-Yes! and we would see that the timing of the Ballot was 'designed' to take action at this time.So either he was giving it large or thought it likely strike action would take place in December.God knows.

Post by **osgoody1970** » 07 Oct 2017, 07:27

so, royal mail are going to court to get an injunction to prohibit our strike ballot under the guise, that they have a legal binding process to go through first, shows you the contempt that they hold for the workforce, I would assume, by closing the pension scheme by executive action, it would invalidate the process anyway, you can't have it both ways!!!! any business that ignores a virtual 90% yes vote for strike action, has to have total disregard for the CWU and it's members, royal mail have shown by their actions, ( Moya and her henchmen, not being present at any of the talks) they are not fit to run this company and should all resign!!!

lee trigger · Post by **lee trigger** » 07 Oct 2017, 09:16

OK folks let's calm down . Let them take us to court, so what .there just going to stall the inevitable .we are going to strike.
Support the union stick together stop the negative comments they serve no purpose. Remember we are the union let's get a good deal.

Phantom · Post by **Phantom** » 07 Oct 2017, 09:19

osgoody1970 wrote:so, royal mail are going to court to get an injunction to prohibit our strike ballot under the guise, that they have a legal binding process to go through first, shows you the contempt that they hold for the workforce, I would assume, by closing the pension scheme by executive action, it would invalidate the process anyway, you can't have it both ways!!!! any business that ignores a virtual 90% yes vote for strike action, has to have total disregard for the CWU and it's members, royal mail have shown by their actions, ( Moya and her henchmen, not being present at any of the talks) they are not fit to run this company and should all resign!!!

It would invalidate the agreement yes and if a judge says otherwise then he/she is obviously in the pocket of RM.

rubberbond · Post by **rubberbond** » 07 Oct 2017, 16:01

Phantom wrote:
osgoody1970 wrote:so, royal mail are going to court to get an injunction to prohibit our strike ballot under the guise, that they have a legal binding process to go through first, shows you the contempt that they hold for the workforce, I would assume, by closing the pension scheme by executive action, it would invalidate the process anyway, you can't have it both ways!!!! any business that ignores a virtual 90% yes vote for strike action, has to have total disregard for the CWU and it's members, royal mail have shown by their actions, ( Moya and her henchmen, not being present at any of the talks) they are not fit to run this company and should all resign!!!
It would invalidate the agreement yes and if a judge says otherwise then he/she is obviously in the pocket of RM.

As I pointed out on a previous thread, the law is unemotional, it decides on legislation drawn up by parliament,which the court interprets the will of parliament.

ROYALMAILCHAT